JUDGMENT : Heard Mr. B. R. Dey, learned Senior counsel appearing for the appellants/ plaintiffs, on admission of the Second Appeal under Order 41 Rule 11 CPC. 2. Mr. Dey, learned Senior counsel for the appellant has submitted that the only substantial question of law, which, according to him has arisen in the facts of this case is as to whether the impugned judgment of the learned Lower Appellate Court is a judgment in conformity with Order 41 Rule 31 CPC. According to him, in case of a judgment of reversal, it is incumbent on the part of the learned Lower Appellate Court to independently assess the evidence on record and, then, to record its conclusion. Learned Senior counsel submits that same is not the case herein as the impugned judgment of the learned Lower Appellate Court would go to show. 3. The appellants are the legal representatives of the original plaintiff, Sri Manindra Mohan Saha, who filed the suit praying for declaration of right, title, interest and possession over the suit land measuring 1 Bigha 1 Katha 9 Lecha, covered by Dag Nos. 654, 788 of Khatian No. 357 at Village Kaldoba Pt.2, Circle-Agomani, in the District of Dhubri, and for a permanent injunction restraining the defendant from correcting the record as khas and for a decree directing the defendant No. 2 to correct the records in the name of the plaintiff. Originally the suit was filed against the State of Assam, represented by the Collector and the Settlement Officer, Dhubri District. Subsequently, the legal representatives of his two brothers, namely, Manmonth Nath Saha and Phanindra Mohan Saha were impleaded as defendants. 4. The plaintiff had filed the suit alleging that he had right, title and interest as well as possession over the suit land and his one brother, Phanindra Mohan Saha had left for East Pakistan, where he expired and the other brother, Manmoth Nath Saha, had relinquished right over the suit land and while he was continuing in possession, defendant No. 2 threatened that the land record would be made khas, which prompted him to file the suit. 5. The defendant No. 1 had filed written statement stating that Patta, being Patta No. 209, was issued in respect of the suit land in the name of three brothers. 5. The defendant No. 1 had filed written statement stating that Patta, being Patta No. 209, was issued in respect of the suit land in the name of three brothers. In the written statement, it was stated in unequivocal terms that the suit land being a Patta land, there was no attempt whatsoever to threaten the plaintiff as stated in the plaint and that the suit was filed deliberately with the sole objective of eliminating the names of the two brothers from the Patta and, as such, prayed dismissal of the suit. 6. The impleaded defendants filed written statement as well as counter-claim praying for declaration of right, title and interest of the impleaded defendants to the extent of 2/3rd share of the suit land and also for a decree for khas possession by evicting the plaintiff in respect of their shares. The suit of the plaintiff was dismissed for default on 08.04.2003 and the plaintiff did not take any further steps for restoration of the suit. The specific plea taken in the written statement cum counter-claim is that the plaintiff is entitled to 1/3rd share of the suit land and the impleaded defendants are entitled to get 2/3rd share of the suit land. The further case of the impleaded defendants is that Phanindra Mohan Saha and Manmoth Nath Saha had shifted to Srirampur and that the plaintiff was given permissive possession of their share of land. 7. The plaintiff filed a written statement to the counter-claim denying the statement that the suit land was jointly possessed by the plaintiff and the counter-claimants and that all the three brothers had equal share in the suit land. The case, as set out in the written statement to the counter-claim, is that 1 Bigha 1 Katha 9 Lecha of land was wrongly recorded in the names of the plaintiff and his two brothers. 8. The learned Lower Appellate Court had framed the following issues: “1. Is this suit maintainable in its present form and manner? 2. Is there any cause of action for this suit? 3. Is this suit bad for non-service of notice under Section 80 CPC against the defendant No. 1 and 2? 4. Is this suit bad for non-joinder of parties? 5. Is this suit barred by limitation? 6. Is this suit barred by res-judicata? 7. 2. Is there any cause of action for this suit? 3. Is this suit bad for non-service of notice under Section 80 CPC against the defendant No. 1 and 2? 4. Is this suit bad for non-joinder of parties? 5. Is this suit barred by limitation? 6. Is this suit barred by res-judicata? 7. Whether the plaintiff has right, title and interest over the suit land and to what extent? 8. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the decree as prayed for? Issues on counter-claim: 9. Is the counter-claim sustainable? 10. Whether this Court has the pecuniary jurisdiction to decide this counter-claim? 11. Is the counter-claim barred by limitation? 12. Is there any cause of action for the counter-claim? 13. Is the counter-claim bad for non-joinder of necessary parties? 14. Is the counter-claim barred by Specific Relief Act, A.L.R.R., laws of partition, principles of estoppels, waiver and acquiescence? 15. Is the counter-claim property valued and stamped? 16. Is the counter-claim barred by res judicata? 17. Whether the suit land was a joint property under Gauripur Raj Estate? 18. Whether the plaintiff possessed the suit land as permissive possessor? 19. Whether the counter-claimants have right, title and interest over the suit land? 20. To what reliefs the parties may be entitled?” 9. Two witnesses were examined by the counter-claimants and two witnesses were also examined by the original plaintiff. As the suit of the plaintiff was dismissed for default, learned Trial Court did not discuss the issues framed in connection with the suit filed. The learned Trial Court decided Issue No. 12 relating to cause of action as well as Issue Nos. 17, 18, 19 and 20 against the counter-claimants and, resultantly, the counter-claim was also dismissed. 10. While taking up the issue of cause of action in Issue No. 12, the learned Trial Court had observed that in view of the decisions in the foregoing issues, it can be inferred that the counter-claim has no cause of action. It was also observed that the evidence in the counter-claim was feeble. 11. Whether or not one succeeds in the suit is a different proposition altogether and end result should not be determinative of cause of action. It was also observed that the evidence in the counter-claim was feeble. 11. Whether or not one succeeds in the suit is a different proposition altogether and end result should not be determinative of cause of action. One may have got a cause of action for taking recourse to the Court of law, but he may not succeed in establishing the case for which he is prompted to knock at the doors of the Court. Merely because one fails to establish his case in the suit, it does not logically follow that there was no cause of action for the suit. But that is precisely what was held by the learned Trial Court in the present case and, therefore, such finding of the learned Trial Court in Issue No. 12 cannot be sustained, more so, when the learned Trial Court had considered all the issues and the evidence on record. 12. The learned Trial Court held that three brothers were not settled in the suit land by the Jamindars of Gouripur Raj Estate, making out a case, which was not the case of any of the parties including the State defendants, who had stated in the written statement that the suit land was Patta land of the three brothers. The learned Trial Court also recorded that the counter-claimants failed to prove that the original plaintiff had been put in permissive possession of the suit land. 13. The learned Lower Appellate Court reversed the judgment of the Lower Appellate Court in respect of the counter-claim and decreed the counter-claim. In view of the submission of Mr. Dey, it is to be examined as to whether the judgment of the learned Lower Appellate Court conforms to the mandate of Order 41 Rule 31 CPC? The first appellant Court, being the final court of facts, it is incumbent on the first appellate Court to consider the evidence adduced by the parties and documents exhibited. In a case where the appellate Court agrees with the view of the trial Court on the evidence, it may not be necessary for the appellate Court either to reiterate the reasons given by the trial Court or to reaffirm the effect of the evidence. In such a case, expression of general agreement with the reasoning given in the judgment, which is under challenge before the appellate Court, would normally suffice. In such a case, expression of general agreement with the reasoning given in the judgment, which is under challenge before the appellate Court, would normally suffice. In the case of affirmation of a judgment appealed against, the reasoning offered by the trial Court can be said to be the view or reasons of the appellate Court. But in case of a judgment of reversal, as in the present case, it will be obligatory on the part of the learned Lower Appellate Court to independently assess and analyse the evidence on record. A decision rendered without adverting to the evidence on record and highlighting, the salient features thereof, cannot be said to be a judgment in conformity with the mandate of Order 41 Rule 31 CPC. 14. Bearing in mind the principles undrelying Order 41 Rule 31 CPC, I am unable to sustain the argument of Mr. Dey. Learned Lower Appellate Court addressed the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and also adverted to the evidence on record and analysed the same with regard to its impact on the case of the respective parties. The learned Lower Appellate Court held that it was the projected case of the plaintiff that the suit land was wrongly recorded in the names of the three brothers instead of recording the name of the plaintiff only, but no material particulars were furnished by the plaintiff to show how the names were wrongly recorded. It is also noted by the learned Lower Appellate Court that when the plaintiffs had pleaded relinquishment of right by one of the brothers, necessarily it will be indicative of the fact that the brother, who had relinquished the share, had a share in the property, which cuts at the root of the case projected by the plaintiff that the names of the brothers were wrongly recorded in the Khatian. The learned Lower Appellate Court also rejected Ext.-D, Deed of Relinquishment, being not a registered document. On the basis of the Khatian, Ext.-2, which was proved by the counter-claimants, the learned Lower Appellate Court came to the finding that the suit land is a joint property of the plaintiff, Phanindra Mohan Saha and Manmoth Nath Saha. The learned Lower Appellate Court also rejected Ext.-D, Deed of Relinquishment, being not a registered document. On the basis of the Khatian, Ext.-2, which was proved by the counter-claimants, the learned Lower Appellate Court came to the finding that the suit land is a joint property of the plaintiff, Phanindra Mohan Saha and Manmoth Nath Saha. With regard to the plea of permissive possession, the learned Lower Appellate Court had recorded that in absence of any evidence of complete ouster of the brothers of the plaintiff from the suit property, the possession of the plaintiff would be deemed to be the possession on behalf of other co-sharers. It has to be emphasized, at this point, that there was no assailment on the findings of the learned Lower Appellate Court, but what is argued is that the findings were recorded without due deliberation on the materials on record. 15. On a reading of the judgment of the leaned Lower Appellate Court, I am of the considered opinion that the impugned judgment of the learned Lower Appellate Court cannot be faulted with on the touchstone of the mandate of Order 41 Rule 31 CPC. That being the only ground urged in respect of admission of the appeal and the same having been found to be without merit, the appeal is dismissed. No cost.